Certain hearings are designed to make headlines. A confession, or at the very least a stumble, was expected from the one involving Jack Smith on Tuesday. Instead, it presented a tale about the incorrect basketball team.
It was easy to set up. Sen. Eric Schmitt inquired about the former special counsel’s attendance at an Atlanta Hawks game on February 3, 2024, implying that he may have run into Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis there. Smith looked genuinely perplexed and said no. Schmitt appeared to sense a moment of perjury. Then the texts surfaced, pointing to a women’s college game in College Park, Maryland, between Iowa’s Hawkeyes—not the Hawks—and Maryland. Smith claimed to have been accompanied by US Marshals. According to Caitlin Clark, two coworkers, JP Cooney and David Harbach, were also present.
| Detail | Information |
|---|---|
| Full name | John Luman “Jack” Smith |
| Born | June 5, 1969 (age 57) |
| Education | Liverpool High School (1987), SUNY Oneonta (1991), Harvard Law School (1994) |
| Known for | Former Special Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice |
| Appointed | Nov. 18, 2022, by Attorney General Merrick Garland |
| Time as special counsel | 2022–2025 |
| Earlier career | Assistant U.S. attorney, acting U.S. attorney, head of the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section, prosecutor at The Hague |
| Major cases | Two indictments against Donald Trump |
| Partner | Katy Chevigny (since 2011) |
| Event | Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Tuesday, Sept. 29, 2026 |
| Smith’s main claim | His team developed proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump engaged in serious crimes |
| Sen. Eric Schmitt’s question | Asked whether Smith attended an Atlanta Hawks game on Feb. 3, 2024 |
| What actually happened | Smith attended a women’s college game, Maryland vs. Iowa, in College Park, Maryland, accompanied by US Marshals |
| Others at the game | Prosecutors JP Cooney and David Harbach, per a source cited by CNN |
| Schmitt’s response | Said he was only asking questions and was not embarrassed |
| Phone records dispute | Smith confirmed his office sought lawmakers’ call logs (not content) during the Jan. 6 investigation |
| Smith’s reasoning | Feared obstruction and witness threats if lawmakers were alerted to the subpoenas |
| Sen. Ted Cruz’s criticism | Called the investigation a “fishing expedition” and accused Smith of harming the Justice Department |
| Sen. Thom Tillis’s comment | Warned both parties against cheering political prosecutions, citing the Comey case |
| Sen. Cory Booker’s comment | Said the committee was putting the investigators on trial |
| Smith on Sen. Lindsey Graham | Called him a patriotic public servant who was not a target and likely would have been a witness |
| Smith on the 2024 immunity ruling | Expressed concern about creating exceptions for powerful people |
| Published reports | The Jack Smith Report (final report on efforts to interfere with the transfer of power after the 2020 election) |
The confusion makes it difficult not to flinch a little. Later, Schmitt clarified that he was merely posing a question and that it is his responsibility to do so. In theory, that makes sense. However, the few hundred-mile distance between Atlanta and Maryland matters in a room where the word “perjury” was being used.
There was a genuine dispute in the hearing beneath the commotion. Smith, who obtained two indictments against Donald Trump after being appointed special counsel by Merrick Garland in November 2022, informed the Senate Judiciary Committee that his team had produced evidence of serious crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. He makes that assertion, and it’s important to keep in mind that neither case ever made it to a jury. Republicans referred to his work as an abuse of power. Sen. Ted Cruz went the furthest, referring to it as the worst abuse in the history of the Justice Department and relying on a Les Misérables analogy that, as CNN reporters pointed out, doesn’t quite fit the character he meant.
Phone records were at the center of the most contentious dispute. Smith acknowledged that in relation to the Jan. 6 investigation, his office requested call logs rather than content from members of Congress. Lawmakers detested it. In response, Smith stated that he wanted the businesses prohibited from providing information to anyone because he was concerned about obstruction, including witness threats. Depending on where you were seated prior to the start of the hearing, you may or may not find that reasoning satisfactory. Smith responded tactfully when Sen. Darline Graham pressed him about her late brother’s records, describing him as a patriotic public servant who probably would have been a witness rather than a target.
Strange moments of self-control appeared out of nowhere. Sen. Thom Tillis, a Republican, cited the case against James Comey to caution colleagues about supporting prosecutions only when their side gains. According to Politico, the day produced insults rather than revelations, and Sen. Cory Booker claimed the committee was trying the investigators rather than the events of January 6. That seems to be about correct.
What remains is Smith’s more subdued response regarding the immunity decision made by the Supreme Court in 2024. According to him, the rule of law may be jeopardized by exceptions made for powerful individuals. Even though it might be the most memorable sentence, it received far less attention than the basketball story.
Smith, a 57-year-old Harvard Law graduate who previously worked as a war crimes prosecutor at The Hague, has experienced harsher rooms than this one. Nevertheless, it seems that neither side has changed. Whether the nation wants a verdict on his work or simply a better replay of it is still up for debate.
